I wish to divulge Evolution/Natural selection in this discussion forum. I also witch to show that Evolution/Natural selection can be disproven by the simple rules of science and the limits of what is possible in this universe. Evolution/Natural selection is invalid for the following reasons:

1. According to this theory, everything began with the big bang. The big bang is nothing more than an explosion. According to the theory, there was nothing there before the explotion, so what could have caused it? Even so, let’s say that there were gasses to make an explosion possible. The only gas byproduct would be CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) and all other gasses, such as Oxygen, Helium, and other flammable gasses would have burned off. In effect, we would not have them today. Furthermore, if an explosion did take place that started the universe, how did minerals, meteorites (rocks in general), substances and elements come about? Not possible after all that is left from the explosion is CO2.

2. OK, let’s say the explosion did take place and the general building blocks for the universe (gasses, elements, and minerals) came to be, even though a real explosion would only produce byproducts of CO2, which cannot be used to build anything without other elements. The possibility that the minerals would come together to form meteorites (rocks in general), planets such as earth, precious stones, complex minerals and substances made of 2 or more elements? And all with no one to delegate the proper combinations of proteins? How could proteins come together, again with no one to delegate the proper combinations of proteins, to make life forms? Just one cell for that matter which is made up of proteins in a certain combination. That large number of specific proteins coming together by chance is impossible. Get this: that's only one cell! That’s not even a specific type of cell (immuno, skin, muscle, etc.), and one cell comes nowhere close to making up a fraction of the trillions of cells that make up just ONE human body.

3. Let’s say that cells did form under water, even though the possibility is very unlikely (that the many proteins that make up cells would happen, by chance, to end up under water after/during the Earth formed).The right type and number of cells come together to make an organism. The theory also states that once these cells form an organism, they proceed to go from water onto land. Once on land, they lose their gills, fins, etc. and gain lungs, legs, etc. This stage is not even feasible. Remember that all other cells besides immuno cells on land automatically perished from bacteria (all other cells besides immuno cells have no way of protecting themselves from bacteria)? There would be no other cells that could add onto that organism to make lungs and muscles and bones for legs and arms. There would therefore be no life forms on land, which is nothing like the world we know today.

4. According to the theory of Evolution, dinosaurs "evolved" or "developed" before humans did. Therefore, is this was true, and then fossils of human footprints would be above dinosaurs in the fossils record. Evidence was found a few years ago that smashes Evolution. There are 2 trails in the U.S., the McCall Trail and the Taylor Trail, which contain fossils with human and dinosaur footprints in the same layer. Dinosaurs, according to the theory of Evolution, also appeared about 206-144 million years ago while humans appeared later (I don’t know exactly when). Dinosaur footprints would therefore be a lot farther down in the Earth's crust than human footprints (human footprints are actually found on the surface). View this link:

Explore the site and you will be able to see several pictures of human footprints inside dinosaur footprints.

Also, in that same website, at the very top there is a link that leads to a page concerning what some major authorities in Evolution said if human footprints were found inside dinosaur footprints.

With regards to what those evolutionists have stated, look under Richard Dawkins' statement. He, having been disproved by the evidence presented by the footprints in the McFall and Taylor Trail, in all of his audacity and boldness, outright accused Creationists of tainting the fossil record at McFall and Taylor trail. AND I QUOTE: "Ironically, it is also the reason why creationist are so keen on the fake human footprints, which were carved during the depression to fool tourist, in the dinosaur beds of Texas," (taken from this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-human-c ... tions.htm; the website took the quote I have presented from: The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225).

Would you not agree that it is not only inappropriate, but downright cowardice, to resort to insulting the opposite party and thus avoiding confronting the clear evidence instead of disproving the evidence that has been presented?

Evolution simply isn’t possible. It is impossible for life to develop on land, making all organisms to develop underwater. Even if those organisms proceeded to land, there would be no cells on land to add onto that organism. Even if the organism developed man-like features under the water, it would drown before it could reach land. Even if land is reached, there is nothing for that organism to feed on. Evolution is impossible. The big bang theory could never happen.

I encourage further discussion: if you wish to prove me wrong, post a reply and I will respond with evidence to prove my point father. I also encourage the further additive to this present knowledge that I have posted. Please feel free to reply or send a message to Sophocles.

Attachments

This is a human footprint trail and a dinosaur foorprint train crossing eachother. I knwo there is a man in the background; his feet do coincide with the human footprints in the limestone. HOWEVER: is you save the picture and look at (the human footprints) it on your computer, you will find that the footprints have deapth. You can also use the zoom to look at the dinosaur foorprints; you'll see they have depth as well.

This is a close-up of a human foorprint inside a dinosaur footprint. This may be the footprint that Richard Dawkins was talking about. The footprint where he accused creationists of carving the human footprint into the dinosaur footprint (please review the 2nd link). Ofcourse what Mr. Dawkins sais about siad topic is false, just for the record.

If you have further questions, please search for profile/send a message to Sophyclese.

This is so full of ignorance that a point by point refutation will take me years but:

1-Big bang and evolution have very little to do with one another, so please do not mix physics and biology.

2-I mix oxygen and Hydrogen and I light a match, I obtain water in a big explosion. I mix matter and antimatter together and I free at lot of energy and probably destroy a notable amount of real estate around the explosion site, but no CO2 is liberated. Not all explosion have CO2 as a result. And study astronomy/astrophysics if you want to talk about the big bang and how matter was created.

3- Life likely started in water because it is even less likely that protein can crawl on land to meet one another, while complex solutions can show interesting behaviours. As for cell associations, diffrent degrees are observed from single cells to community (I bet you have never heard of volvox), to loose organism as sponges to complex organisms as me and sadly, you. As survival from bacteria, let me see, the immune system exist only in higher vertebrates, but I can see yeasts, insects and whole orders of organisms that are surviving bacteria without an immune system. There must be something wrong with your theory...

I don't even wish to read all this (next take, writte it shorter but basically, you are talking about explosions like dynamite or stuff, but big bang was a little bit larger (just a little bit;), so it actually formed the heavy atoms (with thermonuclear reactions in stars afterwards)

You are talking about getting everything together, but that's not the point. The point is, that it has EVOLVED (surprisingly ) from fairly simple things

Sophyclese wrote:1. According to this theory, everything began with the big bang. The big bang is nothing more than an explosion. According to the theory, there was nothing there before the explotion, so what could have caused it? Even so, let’s say that there were gasses to make an explosion possible. The only gas byproduct would be CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) and all other gasses, such as Oxygen, Helium, and other flammable gasses would have burned off. In effect, we would not have them today. Furthermore, if an explosion did take place that started the universe, how did minerals, meteorites (rocks in general), substances and elements come about? Not possible after all that is left from the explosion is CO2.

That is incorrect. Evolution makes no statements whatsoever about anything which occurred before the existence of life.

2. OK, let’s say the explosion did take place and the general building blocks for the universe (gasses, elements, and minerals) came to be, even though a real explosion would only produce byproducts of CO2, which cannot be used to build anything without other elements. The possibility that the minerals would come together to form meteorites (rocks in general), planets such as earth, precious stones, complex minerals and substances made of 2 or more elements? And all with no one to delegate the proper combinations of proteins? How could proteins come together, again with no one to delegate the proper combinations of proteins, to make life forms? Just one cell for that matter which is made up of proteins in a certain combination. That large number of specific proteins coming together by chance is impossible. Get this: that's only one cell! That’s not even a specific type of cell (immuno, skin, muscle, etc.), and one cell comes nowhere close to making up a fraction of the trillions of cells that make up just ONE human body.

A. The big bang was not combustion, which is what produces the CO2 you claimed. B. There is no claim that the materials produced by the big bang directly came together to produce asteroids, planets, or any other complex structure.C. There is no claim in Evolutionary Theory that random molecules assembled themselves into proteins, which then assembled themselves into a human being. That is a creationist claim you are refuting.D. There is no such thing as a statistical impossibility. There is only the highly unlikely.

3. Let’s say that cells did form under water, even though the possibility is very unlikely (that the many proteins that make up cells would happen, by chance, to end up under water after/during the Earth formed).The right type and number of cells come together to make an organism. The theory also states that once these cells form an organism, they proceed to go from water onto land. Once on land, they lose their gills, fins, etc. and gain lungs, legs, etc. This stage is not even feasible. Remember that all other cells besides immuno cells on land automatically perished from bacteria (all other cells besides immuno cells have no way of protecting themselves from bacteria)? There would be no other cells that could add onto that organism to make lungs and muscles and bones for legs and arms. There would therefore be no life forms on land, which is nothing like the world we know today.

This is just so full of incorrect claims and awe-inspiring levels of misunderstanding that I don't even know where to begin refuting it...

4. According to the theory of Evolution, dinosaurs "evolved" or "developed" before humans did. Therefore, is this was true, and then fossils of human footprints would be above dinosaurs in the fossils record. Evidence was found a few years ago that smashes Evolution. There are 2 trails in the U.S., the McCall Trail and the Taylor Trail, which contain fossils with human and dinosaur footprints in the same layer. Dinosaurs, according to the theory of Evolution, also appeared about 206-144 million years ago while humans appeared later (I don’t know exactly when). Dinosaur footprints would therefore be a lot farther down in the Earth's crust than human footprints (human footprints are actually found on the surface). View this link:

Those pictures have been refuted many times over, even by other creationists. They do not show what you claim they show.

With regards to what those evolutionists have stated, look under Richard Dawkins' statement. He, having been disproved by the evidence presented by the footprints in the McFall and Taylor Trail, in all of his audacity and boldness, outright accused Creationists of tainting the fossil record at McFall and Taylor trail. AND I QUOTE: "Ironically, it is also the reason why creationist are so keen on the fake human footprints, which were carved during the depression to fool tourist, in the dinosaur beds of Texas," (taken from this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-human-c ... tions.htm; the website took the quote I have presented from: The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225).

Dawkins was speaking accurately and truthfully when he said that. See the links canalon provided.

Would you not agree that it is not only inappropriate, but downright cowardice, to resort to insulting the opposite party and thus avoiding confronting the clear evidence instead of disproving the evidence that has been presented?

Yes, and that is exactly the tact I see many creationists -yourself included- taking.

I am really sorry to disappoint you, but you have not "disprooven" evolution.

1. The Big Bang was an expansion of space/time, not a true explosion.2. The heavier elements were created during supernova of very large stars. 3. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang or cosmology in general.4. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with The Theory of evolution.5. There are no dinosaur footprints with human footprints. Sometimes the toes of dinosaurs did not make a clear impressions in the mud when footprints were created. This does not make them human footprints. Also, if a footprint looks carved, it probably was. 6. Creationists like the ones who made the websites you cited are the ones who are lying, but I doubt you care. If the lie tastes sweet, you will believe it. 7. Not only is evolution possible, but we see it happening all the time. 8. The evolution of tetrapods proceeded from lobefinned fish that could both breathe air and underwater. Look up "lungfish" on the internet for more information. 9. If you really want to learn what evolution is and what the evidence is, I suggest visiting: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ It is a very good website for non-scientists.